4 yrs. of widespread wiretaps, torture, infiltrations. Domestic Al-Q caught:1

Great Debates
41

Yes, we had all the pieces but it was illegal to connect them and would have been opposed by the ACLU prior to the Patriot Act.

That’s where we will always differ. I follow terrorism like some people follow sports teams. I perceive a threat because of what I’ve learned combined with a knowledge of how easy it would be to disrupt my chunk of the universe. I’m not worried about the NSA nearly as much as I am of local eminent domain laws. If it were up to me I would accelerate the process of NSA surveillance in whatever manner that makes Congress happy.

42

Your opinion that we’ve wasted the money is not consistent with the 9/11 Commission. And again, I’m not against congressional oversight on surveillance approval. I would like to see it used as a rudder to steer it and not a political torpedo to sink it.

43

Um, cite? This is the first I’ve heard that there was no legal way to put the evidentiary pieces together to detect the 9/11 plans. (And based on what I remember of the 9/11 Commission report, it doesn’t sound very plausible.)

I also don’t understand the phrase “would have been opposed by the ACLU prior to the Patriot Act”. The ACLU exists in order to defend individuals’ constitutional rights. The USA-PATRIOT Act is simply a piece of legislation and does not alter the Constitution; therefore, it doesn’t affect what the ACLU considers constitutional. If any law or executive order “would have been opposed by the ACLU” before the Act was passed, it’s a safe bet that it is still opposed by them now.

44

(Just MHO, but I think Squink was referring to the $300 billion spent on the Iraq war, which was launched largely on the false claim that Iraq’s WMD were a critical threat to US safety—hence the comment about “scary old Mr. Saddam busting a nuke”.)

45

Emphasis added.

Right! After all, the current legal process of going to the FISA court (which allows for after-the-fact warrants) is just too cumbersome. Chuck the whole thing, after all safety first, right? I mean, the Constitution is just a piece of paper nothing too meaningful. Actually, while I’m thinking about it, let’s expand things. Cops should search first, do the paperwork later (if at all). As long it produces actionable intelligence, they should be praised. Oh, and you know, that 2nd Amendment thing really creates a problem for law enforcement, after all, a gun can be used for terrorist activity, even a legal one, so I guess they have to go to. And, criticism of the government is really giving aid and comfort to the enemy, so out goes the 1st.

The 3rd seems okay for now, but we might need to get that one later (all the base closures, don’t you know).

We’ve already addressed the 4th so moving on to the 5th. Hmmm, “due process of law” sounds pretty complicated and we’re at war, right? Good, dump it.

The 6th is just rife with problems, isn’t it. After all, we shouldn’t treat these guys like real Americans, so let’s move that one out of the way.

Seven presents the obvious issue that if we go to a jury they might let the guy go - unless we have a system to make sure the jury doesn’t have any damn idealists on it. Maybe that works better and then we can keep 7 (mostly anway).

Well 8 just seems silly in these dangerous days. What if there’s a ticking bomb that all of the above didn’t catch?

9 just needs to be reworded a bit. Something like “Any right not explicitly given by the Constitution don’t mean jack.” Much better.

10, well let’s face it, nobody’s ever figured out what that one means anyway, so I guess it can stay.

So where are we? 3, 7, 9 (as amended), and 10. Perfect! 4 is a nice round number.

Man, glad we got that out of the way, I feel safer already. After all, we can trust government not to abuse their power, right? Right?

46

The whole problem with wiretaps is we don’t know how many to do or whom to tap untill you start looking…you see the catch? It’s not like the gov is sitting outside your house tapping your phone line. They don’t have the time nor the resources to do that. They try to monitor specific people making calls to other specific people, however, finding those people is probably not very specific. That’s the trouble with it. You have to start somewhere, which is where the alleged right violations come into play, and narrow down the searches untill you find the intelligence you’re looking for.

47

Nice job of “slippery slope” hyperbole. Now please point out any actual damage done to anyone.

48

Yes, the NSA software looks for key words, locations and patterns. After that, human analysis and possible monitoring takes over.

Look, I get the “slippery slope” wailing and gnashing of teeth. I just happen to think that the government should do all it can to find and neutralize those who plot or destruction.

If someone thinks that some sort of etheral ideological idea is more important than national security then to each his own. Do any of you really think that the government is monitoring you? Seriously? Do you think they care?

If you are a muslim male im his 20’s or 30’s who has been in the country for less than five years originally from the middle east, they probably are listening. If so, blame your peers for their misdeeds and keep your nose clean.

49

Torture? Really? :dubious: Cite?

One of the things the Patriot act did is really put the screws down on unlawful money transfers into the USA (sometimes called “Hawallas” sp?). This IMHO prevented several acts of terrorism, and will make another disaster like 9/11 (which was both expensive and well organized) very hard to ever have again in the USA. Not that there won’t be a nutcase with a bomb- that’s very cheap and hard to prevent by any means.

But you see- we’ll never know how many acts of Terrorism were prevented by cutting the flow of unregistered and unlawful funds into the USA. One? A few? Dozens?

Let’s say it was *just one. * I’d say that the Anti-money-laundering provisions were then well worth it.

Now sure, the various Intelligence orgs have stuck their noses into a few areas where there weren’t needed. How did they know that before they looked? But what has been the cost? Can you point to innocent lives ruined?

I admit that I am not entirely confortable with all the snooping- it clearly needs to be fine-tuned. And, it appears Congress agrees. Hopefully, when they get around to re-renewing the Patriot Act they’ll do that very thing.

50

My preference would be that government should do all it legally can to find and neutralize those who plot our destruction.

Emphasis added. That’s the “etheral ideological idea” you seem willing to throw out in the name of “security” (particularly foolish in that it’s a false dichotomy - there are crimes and incidents in every country, even those with regimes that do try their level best to monitor everybody).

The “gnashing of teeth” (at least for my part) is due to the fact that “national security” is a mutable concept subject to the whim of the current power. So it’s not out of the realm of possibility that one day some belief of yours or mine may be considered the threat, at which point you or I will be the ones monitored. But you can just blame your peers and keep your nose clean.

51

I don’t have to. Why should we wait until damage is done or innocent lives ruined to stop this practice? Are you in favor of letting drunks drive as long as they don’t hit anything or anyone?

52

This presupposes that the monitoring is an active danger on a par with drunken driving. It’s not. It is an intellectual issue.

53

Well, yes. In fact, I doubt if the first drunken-driving law was put on the books before the first drunk got into a nsaty accident. But once we have evidence that drunk driving is dangerous, we then have the right & responsibility to stop anyone from doing it.

But so far- I haven’t seen any real damage from the snooping.

Now- I AM very much in favour of Congress fine-tuning the Partiot act to cut back on certain aspects of the domestic snooping- and I figure that’ll be pretty darn soon. But- I hardly think this is a such great big emergency so that we can’t wait a month or so for Congress to make the nessesary changes. Now, if they don’t- well come back with this thread. But for now, it looks like Congress has realized that the Patriot act does go too far, and will be re-writing it.

54

Considering I am a law-abiding citizen, I will not be monitored unless I engage in activity that will call attention to myself. Since I’m not setting up terror cells in my spare time, I’m not worried.

The “someday it could be you” idea is flawed and more slippery slope hyperbole. It won’t happen to me…or you…and you know it.

55

And yet budgets are being passed, the military is being given the equipment it needs, and the economy is roaring. Just what isn’t being done? Frankly, I could stand to see the U.S. government doing a little less…

Really? The deficit as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was for most of the Reagan administration, the first Bush administration, and half of the Clinton administration. And it’s dropping fast.

Opinions of the U.S. in the Arab world have been on the rise for the past two years, and thanks to the U.S. military aid in Pakistan, the opinion of the U.S. in Pakistan is higher now than it was before the Iraq war.

Right. They lose twenty of theirs for every American they kill. They must be loving that, huh?

Because they have an actual strategy, and that strategy includes getting the U.S. completely out of the middle east and destroying Israel?

Oh, and you left out the big one - support for Al-Qaida has absolutely collapsed in the Muslim world in the last couple of years.

56

They’re both illegal. Because they’re illegal the presupposition should be that the activity in question should be stopped. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

If you want to argue that the Constitution should be amended to allow it, fine. But until it is, Government has no business breaking the code that created it. To do so invalidates the entire basis of the government’s authority. It also cedes the moral high ground, but that’s apparently not an argument that holds water with you.
DrDeth, Congress ain’t got nothin’ to do with it (except that they can initiate Amendments).

That’s it. And this particular little gem cannot be legislated around.

57

When you present your brief to the SCOTUS, be sure and tell us, OK? :dubious:

58

Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. From what I’ve been able to see, the vast majority of the monitored were law-abiding citizens as well. What makes you so special?

It’s always hyperbole until it actually happens. In my particular case, the fact that I’m an outspoken opponent of these kinds of shenanigans vastly increases the possibility that someday I’ll be seen as a “threat”.

59

Yes I am. Are you actually suggesting that the Homeland Security Department and the Iraq war are effective in countering terrorism?

The main intelligence effort seems to have been concentrated on the gathering of more intelligence which wasn’t the problem. The problem was putting together the information we had in order to figure out what it meant in the way of a threat.

I can’t believe that a coherent study to figure out the best use of our resources would have come up with an attack on Iraq. The cabal of Rummy, Wolfowits, et al had wanted to depose Saddam ever since Gulf War I and seized on the war on terror as a golden opportunity. I think that a rational analysis of what was needed post 9/11 would have exposed the disconnet between war in Iraq and terrorism. I think the series of different justifications for attacking Iraq clearly demonstrates last minute, extemporaneous actions rather than a thought out plan.

Likewise, in the area of domestic security the response was; ta da - a new organization chart. Trying to make the Homeland Security Department work cohesively for the past four years must have taken attention away from actual homeland security. The recent changes in what people are allowed to take on planes indicates that effort was wasted in nonessentials in the past (fingernail clippers anyone?)

The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress without hearings and while some provisions of it were still incomplete. This is indicative of part of a well thought-out counterterrorism plan?

Couple this with Gw’s proven inability to organize and manage and I see incompetence and disorganization as the hallmark of this administration.

And lastly, the point of the OP is the waste of resources demonstrated by the meagre results in the massive spying by NSA and others so I’m not alone in thinking that the post 9/11 response has mostly been a chain of spasmodic, ill-thought-through lunges at shadows. I know that it will be trumpeted that we can’t know what has been gained but a lot must have because there haven’t been any domestic attacks, have there? Secrecy has more than one use. If you do everything in secret and use “national security” to refuse to divulge details like exact planned attacks that have been thwarted you can look good to sycophants and the unreflective.

Yes, I do more than suggest that GW’s reaction to 9/11 is fully in keeping with his record of ill-conceived ventures that turn into a big mess.

60

What? Are you seriously arguing that Congress could pass a law eliminating the warrant requirement for US Citizens and it would pass Constitutional muster? Really? Otherwise, I don’t know what this means…